Hi Jeff:
The RTL pattern already models tail element and vector length well,
so I don't feel the first version of Pan's patch has any problem?
Input RTL pattern:
#(insn 10 7 12 2 (set (reg:VNx2BI 134 [ _1 ])
# (if_then_else:VNx2BI (unspec:VNx2BI [
# (const_vector:VNx2BI repeat [
# (const_int 1 [0x1])
# ]) # all-1 mask
# (reg:DI 143) # AVL reg, or vector length
# (const_int 2 [0x2]) # mask policy
# (const_int 0 [0]) # avl type
# (reg:SI 66 vl)
# (reg:SI 67 vtype)
# ] UNSPEC_VPREDICATE)
# (geu:VNx2BI (reg/v:VNx2QI 137 [ v1 ])
# (reg/v:VNx2QI 137 [ v1 ]))
# (unspec:VNx2BI [
# (reg:SI 0 zero)
# ] UNSPEC_VUNDEF))) # maskoff and tail operand
# (expr_list:REG_DEAD (reg:DI 143)
# (expr_list:REG_DEAD (reg/v:VNx2QI 137 [ v1 ])
# (nil))))
And the split pattern, only did on tail/maskoff element with undefined value:
(define_split
[(set (match_operand:VB 0 "register_operand")
(if_then_else:VB
(unspec:VB
[(match_operand:VB 1 "vector_all_trues_mask_operand")
(match_operand 4 "vector_length_operand")
(match_operand 5 "const_int_operand")
(match_operand 6 "const_int_operand")
(reg:SI VL_REGNUM)
(reg:SI VTYPE_REGNUM)] UNSPEC_VPREDICATE)
(match_operand:VB 3 "vector_move_operand")
(match_operand:VB 2 "vector_undef_operand")))] # maskoff
and tail operand, only match undef value
Then it turns into vmset, and also discard mask policy operand (since
maskoff is undef means don't care IMO):
(insn 10 7 12 2 (set (reg:VNx2BI 134 [ _1 ])
(if_then_else:VNx2BI (unspec:VNx2BI [
(const_vector:VNx2BI repeat [
(const_int 1 [0x1])
]) # all-1 mask
(reg:DI 143) # AVL reg, or vector length
(const_int 2 [0x2]) # mask policy
(reg:SI 66 vl)
(reg:SI 67 vtype)
] UNSPEC_VPREDICATE)
(const_vector:VNx2BI repeat [
(const_int 1 [0x1])
]) # all-1
(unspec:VNx2BI [
(reg:SI 0 zero)
] UNSPEC_VUNDEF))) # still vundef
(expr_list:REG_DEAD (reg:DI 143)
(nil)))
On Sat, Apr 29, 2023 at 11:05 PM Jeff Law <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 4/28/23 20:55, Li, Pan2 wrote:
> > Thanks Jeff for comments.
> >
> > It makes sense to me. For the EQ operator we should have CONSTM1.
> That's not the way I interpret the RVV documentation. Of course it's
> not terribly clear. I guess one could do some experiments with qemu
> or try to dig into the sail code and figure out the intent from those.
>
>
>
> Does this mean s390 parts has similar issue here? Then for instructions
> like VMSEQ, we need to adjust the simplify_rtx up to a point.
> You'd have to refer to the s390 instruction set reference to understand
> precisely how the vector compares work.
>
> But as it stands this really isn't a simplify-rtx question, but a
> question of the semantics of risc-v. What happens with the high bits
> in the destination mask register is critical -- and if risc-v doesn't
> set them to all ones in this case, then that would mean that defining
> that macro is simply wrong for risc-v.
>
> jeff
